Why Selective Activism?

When All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) announced constituting ‘Sharia court’ in every district, activists of pseudo-secular brigade, always ready to fight on every unconstitutional issue, maintained a studied silence on this threatening subject. It is noteworthy that these same activists start screaming when a leader merely says that India should be announced ‘Hindu Rashtra’. If India should not be announced ‘Hindu Rashtra’, should India have two legal systems? Isn’t it seditious? Are we a democratic country or not?

Raising questions against any injustice is always welcomed in democracy and precisely this is the beauty of a democratic system. In India, under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and truly speaking,, everyone enjoys this right, especially our activists, coming on the street, writing articles by using social media. Nowadays, activism is at its highest level, but it is most selective and prejudiced to benefit a particular organization or agenda.

When an issue like women entry into Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala is argued, every liberal and secular organizations come in support of Hindu women and owing to this, finally, women are allowed into Sabarimala temple. However, these same groups keep silence on the issue like triple talaq, polygamy and nikah halala, one of the worst inhuman practices on the earth. Why? Because this issue is related with minority community, and according to these groups, questioning minority on any issue is against secularism and a threat to democracy. It does not matter how many Ishrat Jahan from Bengal suffers from this horrible practice; these people will remain in silence. Not only this, when anyone questions the growing population of the minority community, he/she is branded a right wing person and hence communal. But the irony is that these same groups start screaming when any small leader says that Hindu should also have more than four children. So why is this selective approach? It should be condemned regardless of religion. Growing population is a threat to the nation, as India has limited resources and it cannot tolerate this much burden. It doesn’t matter who comes in power, if population issue is not resolved; employment will remain an unsolved matter.

According to section 11(1)(m)(ii) and section 11(1)(n), PCA Act, 1960 of the Indian Constitution, organizing or participating in or inciting any animal fight is a cognizable offense and some Indian activists enjoy this rule to oppose Jallikattu. When the cow or any other animals are slaughtered at an open place on the occasion of a particular festival, these same groups do not look at the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rule, 2001, which says that no animal (including chickens) can be slaughtered in any place other than a slaughterhouse. If animal sacrifice on a particular day is the faith of a community, then what about those, who have strong faith in cow and worship it as a scared animal?

A few days back, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) announced constituting ‘Sharia court’ in every district, these groups maintained a studied silence. It is noteworthy that these same groups start screaming when any leader merely says that India should be announced ‘Hindu Rashtra’. If India should not be announced ‘Hindu Rashtra’, should India have two legal systems? Isn’t it seditious? Are we a democratic country or not? The irony is that the so-called secular political parties like TMC, SP, Congress and others become a mute spectator and does not utter a word on such issues.

In 2014, when Narendra Modi came to power, various questions were raised on his graduation degree. Not only activists, even Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal targeted Prime Minister on this subject. However, when Lalu Yadav’s son Tejashwi Yadav, a school drop-out, was inducted as Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar in 2015, Arvind Kejriwal participated in his swearing-in ceremony and no intellectual called Tejashwi an illiterate.

Recently in West Bengal Panchayat elections, on 34 per cent seats, there was no opposition against TMC because of alleged threats and muscle power. Even the Supreme Court observed that there was malpractices in these elections and called it ‘shocking’. Chief Justice of India (CJI), Deepak Mishra said that a few hundreds seats went to polls unopposed can be understood, but here the numbers of seats is in thousands. Still, there was no protest and no condemnation by activists of ‘secular’ brigade. This time democracy did not come under threat, and despite this, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is proclaiming herself as next Prime Minister of this country, keeping her eyes shut on worsening law and order situation in her state.

The fact of the matter is that this kind of selective approach is maligning our democracy, and if it doesn’t stop, people will not have faith in a dissent which is more dangerous.